TRINIDAD O.

LACHICA,
Complainant,

A.M. No. MTJ-05-1609

[OCA-IPI No. 03-1490-MTJ]

Present:

Davide, Jr., C.J.,

- versus -

Quisumbing,
Ynares-Santiago,

Carpio, and
Azcuna, JJ.
JUDGE ROSABELLA M. TORMIS,
Municipal Trial Court in Cities,

Promulgated:

Branch 4, Cebu City,

Respondent.

September 20, 2005

x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J:

In an Affidavit dated October 2, 2003,[1] Trinidad O. Lachica charged Judge

Rosabella M. Tormis of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Cebu City, Branch IV,
with Abuse of Authority relative to Criminal Cases Nos. 57220-R to 57223-R.[2]

Complainant alleged that since the filing of the information, accused Domugho has
remained at large. Thus, the cases were ordered archived[3] but an alias warrant of
arrest[4] was issued by respondent judge on January 14, 2000.

On July 2, 2003, Domugho was apprehended by PO3 Epifanio G. Sanjorjo at around

8:45 p.m. and was brought to the police station for booking and custody at 9:30
p.m.[5]

However, on July 3, 2003, at around 8:30 a.m., complainant was surprised to

receive a call from the accused informing her that she was released from
confinement on July 2, 2003 at 10:00 p.m. Complainant inquired from the police
station if an Order of Release was issued by the court, but she was informed that
the accused was released because the respondent judge called the police station
and told the desk officer that the accused had posted a cash bail bond and may
already be released.

Complainant checked the case records but the expediente contained no copy
of the release order. It was only at 1:00 p.m. that she was shown a copy thereof.
Meanwhile, the case records could not be located. It was only on 4:30 p.m. of July
3, 2003 that the same was found.

The police blotter showed no entry that an order of release was received by
the police. Only a notation that the accused had put up a cash bail bond was
entered therein.

Complainant also averred that it was improper for the respondent judge to
receive the cash bail bond as the function belongs exclusively to the Office of the
Clerk of Court. She claimed that respondent judge committed an act of impropriety
when she called the police station to verbally order the release of the accused. She
claimed that it was irregular that no copy of the release order was found in the
expediente in the morning of July 3, 2003 considering that it was supposedly issued
on July 2, 2003.

In her Comment[6] dated December 3, 2003 respondent judge denied the

charges of complainant. She maintained that on July 2, 2003 at 7:00 p.m., she
issued the Order of Release after the accused posted a cash bond. She claimed that

the accused was released by virtue of the Order of Release and not on the basis of
her alleged telephone call to the police station.

On August 2, 2004, the Court resolved to refer the case to the Executive
Judge, Regional Trial Court, Cebu City for investigation, report and recommendation.
[7]

The investigating judge submitted a Report[8] dated November 18, 2004

recommending that respondent judge be fined in the amount of P20,000.00 or
suspended for three (3) months based on the following findings:

1.
The accused was arrested at 8:45 in the evening of July 2, 200[4], was
booked at the Waterfront Police Station at 9:00 p.m., and released without a Release
Order at 10:00 that same night.

2.
The arresting officer and the accused never appeared before the respondent
judge on the night of July 2, 200[4], as claimed by respondent judge. The accused
was arrested at 8:45 p.m., after her classes at Southwestern University. She could
not have appeared before respondent judge prior to her arrest since she was in
school. Had it been true that the arresting officer appeared before the judge that
night, it would have been highly improbable for the arresting officer not to have
asked for a copy of the Release Order.

3.
No one saw the Release Order on July 2, 200[4], except the respondent
judge, as per testimony of the complainant and Helen Mongoya, and as shown by
the police blotter, and the affidavit of the arresting officer claiming that they were
reprimanded by their Chief because they released the accused without a Release
Order.

4.
The accused was released without the Release Order, and only upon the
telephone call of respondent judge.

5.
The Release Order was never issued on the night of July 2, 200[4]. No judge
in his right mind would issue a Release Order without the record of the case, more
so if the case had been archived.

5.

The Release Order appeared only in the afternoon of July 3, 200[4].

6.
The record of the case was found by court aide, Juan Aos, in the bodega of
MTCC, Branch 4, together with the records of other archived cases, at about 4:30 in
the afternoon of July 3, 200[4].

7.

Respondent judge was in Manila early morning of July 3, 200[4].

8.
It was physically impossible for the respondent judge to have signed the
Release Order before 1:00 p.m. of July 3, 200[4], since she was in Manila. Questions
may be raised whether the Receipt for the Cash Bond and the Release Order were
signed by a person other than the respondent judge. As can be gleaned from the
record, the signature appearing on the Receipt for the Cash Bond, the Release Order
and the signature of the respondent judge on her Comment dated December 10,
2003, do not appear to be signed by the same person.

9.
Respondent judge authenticated the Release Order during the Investigation
proper as the Release Order she issued on July 2, 2003.[9]

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) agreed with the findings of the
investigating judge but recommended that respondent judge be suspended for
three (3) months.[10]

We agree with the findings of the investigating judge and the OCA except for
the recommended penalty.

During the investigation, it was established that the accused was arrested on
July 2, 2003 at 8:45 p.m. and was brought directly to the Waterfront Police Station

where she was booked at 9:00 p.m. At about 10:00 p.m. the accused was set free
without a release order.[11]

Respondent judge, however, claimed that she issued the Order of Release on
July 2, 2003 at around 7:00 p.m. after the accused and her counsel, together with
the arresting officer, came to her office and posted a cash bond. It was by virtue of
this order that the accused was released.

A circumspect scrutiny of the testimonies given by respondent judge reveals

that she made several untruthful statements possibly with the intent to mislead the
Court.

It was improbable that, as claimed by respondent judge, she issued the Order
of Release on July 2, 2003 at around 7:00 p.m. considering that the accused was
apprehended at 8:45 p.m. The complainant and the arresting officer, as well as the
entry in the police blotter all declared that the arrest was made at 8:45 p.m. and not
earlier. Verily, respondent judge could not have issued the release order at around
7:00 p.m. as the accused has not yet been arrested at that time.

She also insisted that on July 2, 2003, the accused and her counsel, and the
arresting officer went to her office and posted a bond whereupon she issued the
Order of Release. However, this is belied by the testimonies of the arresting officer
and the complainant who both claimed that the accused was brought directly to the
police station after the arrest. We agree with the observation of the OCA that, it
would be impossible for complainant or the arresting officer not to have mentioned
anything regarding this incident if the same actually transpired. Likewise, as
pointed out by the investigating judge, it is highly improbable for the arresting
officer not to have demanded a copy of the release order if he really appeared
before the respondent.

Incidentally, the arresting officer denied receiving any order of release from
respondent judge on July 2, 2003. In fact, he claimed that they were reprimanded
by their commanding officer for releasing from their custody the person of the
accused without any accompanying court order. The following day, July 3, 2003, he
went to the court to secure a copy of the said order.

Respondent judge also averred that the Order of Release was received by SP01
James Estrera, which receipt was duly noted in the police blotter. An examination of
the records, however, discloses that what SPO1 Estrera received was only a copy of
the Receipt of the Cash Bail Bond dated July 2, 2003 and not the Order of Release.
In fact, there was no mention of a release order in the police blotter.[12]

It is also undisputed that respondent judge personally received the cash bail bond
for the accused. For this act alone, respondent is already administratively liable.
Section 14, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure specifies the
persons with whom a cash bail bond may be deposited, namely: the collector of
internal revenue or the provincial, city or municipal treasurer. A judge is not
authorized to receive the deposit of cash as bail nor should such cash be kept in his
office.

The respondent judge is guilty of gross misconduct for having abused her judicial
authority when she personally accepted the cash bail bond of the accused and for
deliberately making untruthful statements in her comment and during the
investigation of the instant administrative case with intent to mislead this Court.

The foregoing acts not only seriously undermine and adversely reflect on the
honesty and integrity of respondent judge as an officer of the court; they also
betray a character flaw which speaks ill of her person. Making false representations
is a vice which no judge should imbibe. As the judge is the visible representation of
the law, and more importantly justice, he must therefore, be the first to abide by the
law and weave an example for the others to follow.[13]

In the Judiciary, moral integrity is more than a cardinal virtue, it is a necessity.[14]

Respondent must bear in mind that the exacting standards of conduct demanded
from judges are designed to promote public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary.[15] When the judge himself becomes the transgressor
of the law which he is sworn to apply, he places his office in disrepute, encourages
disrespect for the law and impairs public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary
itself.[16]

Misconduct is defined as any unlawful conduct of a person concerned in the

administration of justice prejudicial to the rights of parties or to the right
determination of the cause. It generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful
conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose.[17] To
justify the taking of drastic disciplinary action, as is what is sought by complainant
in this case, the law requires that the error or mistake must be gross or patent,
malicious, deliberate or in bad faith.[18]

It need not be overemphasized that in receiving the cash bond respondent

judge ran afoul with Rule 114 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Indeed, in the
case of Office of the Court Administrator v. Fernandez,[19] the Court held that:

The rules specify the persons with whom a cash bail bond may be deposited
namely: the collector of internal revenue, or the provincial, city or municipal
treasurer. Section 14 of Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
(effective December 1, 2000) provides:

SEC. 14. Deposit of Cash as bail The accused or any person acting in his
behalf may deposit in cash with the nearest collector of internal revenue or
provincial, city or municipal treasurer the amount of the bail fixed by the court, or
recommended by the prosecutor who investigated or filed the case. Upon
submission of a proper certificate of deposit and of a written undertaking showing
compliance with the requirements of section 2 of this Rule, the accused shall be
discharged from custody. The money deposited shall be considered as bail and
applied to the payment of fine and costs while the excess, if any, shall be returned
to the accused or to whoever made the deposit.

A judge is not one of those authorized to receive the deposit of cash as bail,
nor should such cash be kept in the office of the judge.

Gross misconduct under Section 8(3), Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court,
as amended, is classified as a serious offense punishable by any of the sanctions
enumerated in Section 11 of the same Rule which provides that:

SEC. 11. Sanctions. A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of

the following sanctions may be imposed:

1.
Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as
the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to
any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided,
however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave
credits;

2.
Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more
than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or

3.

A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.

This is not the first time that respondent judge was sanctioned by this Court. It
appears that aside from this case, respondent judge has been administratively
charged eight (8) other times.[20] Of these cases three (3) have been dismissed.
[21]

On April 27, 2004 in Administrative Matter No. MTJ-00-1337,[22] the Court found
respondent guilty of improper conduct for trying to influence the course of litigation
in Criminal Case No. 99796-12 and was accordingly reprimanded. She was also
admonished for conduct unbecoming of a judge.

On December 17, 2004, respondent was fined in the amount of P5,000.00 in

Administrative Matters Nos. 04-7-373-RTC[23] and 04-7-374-RTC,[24] for gross
violation of Section 17, Rule 114, for having approved the bail of an accused in
Criminal Cases Nos. CEB-BRL-783 and 922 pending before the RTC, Branch 60,
Barili, Cebu, absent showing of unavailability of all RTC judges in Cebu City.

On March 16, 2005, respondent judge was admonished in Administrative Matter No.
04-1554-MTJ and reminded to be more circumspect in granting postponements.

Clearly, being chastised thrice has not reformed respondent. For the foregoing
considerations, we find that the penalties recommended by the investigating judge
and the OCA are not commensurate to respondent judges misconduct which is

aggravated by her past misdeeds. Respondent judges infraction merits suspension

from the service for six (6) months.

WHEREFORE, Rosabella M. Tormis, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court in

Cities, Cebu City, Branch IV, is found GUILTY of gross misconduct and is SUSPENDED
from office for six (6) months without salary and other benefits and STERNLY
WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more
severely.

SO ORDERED.